$45 million Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge a white elephant unless connected to Bank

Jim Watson, Mayor of the City of Ottawa;

cc: Councillors of the Municipal Government of the City of Ottawa;  Derek Moodie, Rural Affairs Office, Pierre Poilievre, Lisa MacLeod

Your Worship:

We write to you to express concern over a recent motion (see appendix) approved by the City of Ottawa’s Transportation Committee that, if sanctioned by an upcoming vote of City Council, will have a long-lasting negative impact upon the residents of Manotick and many other communities in the southern reaches of Ottawa.

On Friday,  November 15, the Transportation Planning Committee passed a motion that will reallocate funding previously approved by Council for completion of the section of Earl Armstrong Rd. that extends from Limebank Rd. to Albion Rd.  This portion of Earl Armstrong Rd. is a key element in the road network that will link the two portions of the southern reaches of our city with the completion of the Strandherd/Armstrong bridge across the Rideau river.

If passed by city Council, this motion will result in a delay in the completion of this road network until past 2031 — a network design that has already been in place --and in various stages of development for-- at least twenty years. During that time countless planning decisions made by the city staff, developers and individual members of our southern communities, residential and commercial, have been premised upon the completion of this network. These planning decisions have shaped the new communities in the south of Ottawa, including Chapman Mills and Riverside South, as well as significant portions of existing ones such as Barrhaven, Manotick and Greeley.

If Council passes this motion it will negatively affect not only past planning decisions but also the future opportunities anticipated by the convenience of east-west vehicle movement across the southern reaches of Ottawa that this network was designed to provide.  The cost implications of this initiative will extend far beyond the reaches of the wards in which this road network is located. For example, the loss of completion of this section of Earl Armstrong Rd. will reduce the ease of access to the amenities planned for the Rideau-Carleton Raceway for the large and growing population of the southwest region of the city.  It will also affect development at and around the airport, restricting travel in the east-west direction across the southern residential and commercial areas of the city.

Delaying completion of the Earl Armstrong Rd. extension will also negatively affect Manotick in several important ways.

1. For want of completion of this short section of Earl Armstrong Rd. pass-through vehicular traffic will continue to choke the residential streets of Manotick.  Without the completion of this vital link in a road network city planners have invested over 20 years of effort planning and building (and that Ottawa’s taxpayers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars paying for), vehicular traffic in the south of the city will likely continue to funnel across the Rideau on Manotick’s little two-lane bridges in favor of a new, 8-line one to the north. 
2. Within the village of Manotick the progression of residential development has been premised upon evidence of reductions in traffic on Bridge Street anticipated following the completion the Strandherd/Armstrong bridge and its associated road network.  Amendment 81 of Ottawa’s Official Plan (affecting Manotick’s Secondary Plan) includes language that requires evidence of increased capacity on Bridge Street following completion of the Strandherd/Armstrong bridge. This evidence may well be difficult to find if the Earl Armstrong Rd. link is not finished.

Without the completion of  the extension of Earl Armstrong Rd., eastward the entire Strandherd Dr. /Armstrong Rd. network risks being underutilized. This may, in our view, offend provincial policy. At least it begs the question as to whether the Transportation Committee has the jurisdiction to do such violence to a part of a larger project that depends so heavily upon provincial and federal monies in addition to the financial commitment from all of the ratepayers of the City of Ottawa.

Finally, we object to the way in which this motion was prosecuted by the Transportation Committee. To our knowledge there was no publicly accessible advance notice of this motion that would provide those interested with reasonable time to prepare and present any response. We also understand that there was no opportunity for the public to provide input to the discussion associated with this motion at the meeting itself.  If true these facts contradict both the spirit and, possibly, the law associated with the Terms of Reference of the Transportation Committee which, among other things, is supposed to: (7) “Receive delegations from the public and hold public hearings as required by statute and Council.” (http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/your-city-government/standing-committees/t...)

For these reasons we ask that Council vote down this resolution and refer the matter back to the Transportation Committee so they can complete their obligation to provide a forum where public input and consultation is allowed its proper place as a vital part of the city’s planning process.

Yours truly,

Klaus Beltzner, President
Brian Tansley, Past President

Appendix

The motion passed by Transportation Committee November 15, 2013.

(Accessed Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:30am from:  http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agendaminutes/index_en.aspx)